If I know someone's mind is set, there's not much point in trying to convince them. However, in a public debate, it's not so much about convincing that guy as it is allowing the audience to hear our side of the argument.

You can not convince the True Believers. But you must not surrender the field to them.

__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

There are people who are simply ignorant, and are willing to learn. There are people who are deliberately ignorant, and are unwilling to learn. Some of them are the living embodiment of the comic's line "You can't fix stupid".

Better on the armed school staff scenario is that schools should have a barricade plan where students take cover. I wouldn't expect teachers to be playing SWAT and should be under cover as well. That means the only person standing to be shot by staff or LEOs is the bad guy.

Elsewhere, the mention of seniors (I will take no offense this time) and disabled needing an advantage is a valid point. Plus there are just too many incidents to count where many shots were needed; more than one perp, perp on bath salts who has just eaten the face off a homeless person that kept on eating after the several shots by LEO (taken down with 4th shot, actually), the lady that barricaded with her children and fired 5 shots into the perp's face only watch him walk away (and if he'd had a partner on bath salts?), etc.

Most anti gun sentiment is either ignorance based prejudice/fear, tinfoil hat stuff or pure bigotry. Given restricting firearms ownership and use is restricting individual freedoms based on who people are rather than any crime, it is bigotry on the same line as the Jim Crow laws and I intend to push this point.

i love the strategy that allows us to keep our mouths shut because "the ignorant will remain ignorant". In that respect, aren't we just letting them drown us out? If we stop debating with the stupid people, then they are the only ones talking and our side no longer gets heard, in the end they win. It's like arguing with a child, when you get fed up and walk away...they feel more accomplished thinking they won. That is how we lose our rights people, getting fed up and walking away.

__________________God made all men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal.

That said speak the truth clearly with out hostile emotion and leave it there.

I disagree. If you're arguing with someone who is one of what I've called the MSNBC spoon-feeders they have a hard time with statistics and logic, then emotional arguments work better. That's what they comprehend. By all means, speak the truth always, but putting into emotional terms lets them grasp the concept.

As noted in my post above, when it comes to things like banning "large" magazines or pistols altogether that's when using emotion comes into play. And I've had some good successes with it too. Framing the discussion to focus on self-defense for the elderly or disabled makes it harder for them to argue for alternative methods. So does personalizing it, such as asking "why do you hate my elderly [grand]mother? Why do you want to deprive her of her [type-of-gun] when it allows her to keep her independence and live in her own home? What about her right to feel safe? Why should she live in fear because you think her gun is scary?"

I used this logic recently when talking to one of the local know-it-nots who thought banning all semi auto guns was a good idea. I pointed out that seniors have trouble manipulating small objects, like cartridges, under stress and a magazine makes it easier for them to reload. Especially since California limits you to 10 shots and there may be two or three assailants to deal with. It was satisfying to see them try to argue, but realize their talking points couldn't stand up in light of such a personalized view.

Using people who are "mobility impaired" (disabled) is just as fruitful.

Honestly, it can be smugness, disdain, or simply a perception of bitterness. Audiences do pick up on those things.

Exactly correct.

The mind set that we need to carry into these conversations is one focused on helping provide understanding. The goal can't be to "win". It's not a war or a contest. It's a conversation. We need to allow the other side to speak as well, so that we may better respond. Asking a lot of questions is a huge help. While most anti "points" are emotional arguments, many of them come from different angles, and many antis have different hot buttons. By asking questions, we have the opportunity to see which patterns emerge in their responses. That allows us to key in on that angle, and not waste our talking time on things that resonate less with them.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.